The Cellar

The Cellar (http://cellar.org/index.php)
-   Philosophy (http://cellar.org/forumdisplay.php?f=25)
-   -   Who does homosexuality hurt? (http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18879)

morethanpretty 12-01-2008 09:26 PM

Who does homosexuality hurt?
 
Please explain your answer.

Elspode 12-01-2008 09:37 PM

I'll say what I always say on this and related topics...

Two people who consent to interact with each other on some level, sexually or otherwise, who are adults, should be allowed.

I'll go further...there is *NO* rational reason to prevent gay couples from marrying, because marriage is a contract, and gay people can enter into any other contract except that one.

Bullitt 12-01-2008 09:42 PM

The people participating: hurts them in that our general society still has a ways to go in regards to accepting gays. Depending on the area, being homosexual can be a rocky road of discrimination.

Children: young children tend to believe whatever you tell them and this is a dangerous power that is abused by those with agendas. I doubt it is a very common occurrence, more like just a possibility I guess but with people being people..., there is a chance some homosexual couples may encourage their child[ren] to become homosexual rather than letting the kid[s] find out for themselves. Of course this is just as applicable on the straight side, but this thread is not about straight folks.

No one: i rarely lose sleep worrying about Sheldon sneaking into my house and giving me surprise buttsecks.



If you only wanted me to choose one, my bad

Razzmatazz13 12-01-2008 09:43 PM

I suppose it'd depend on how much lube you used....ask sheldon

morethanpretty 12-01-2008 09:46 PM

I realized I left an important choice out:

Those who let it hurt them.

Damn.

morethanpretty 12-01-2008 09:46 PM

LOL@Razz. You're my love!

footfootfoot 12-01-2008 10:02 PM

Clearly you haven't been paying attention. It hurts the baby Jesus.

bluecuracao 12-02-2008 12:14 AM

This is such a weird question. It's a given that homosexuality hurts no one. Homosexuality is what it is, and what is meant to be.

The problem is, the horrible attitudes toward homosexuality. They hurt everyone.

Loukianos 12-02-2008 01:11 AM

だれも (no one): simply put, there's nothing inherently bad about homosexuality. The only harm that comes to anyone comes from people, under the influence of society. *is obtuse at early hours*

ZenGum 12-02-2008 05:33 AM

Well, it confuses hunky firemen when professed lesbians start coming on to them.

sweetwater 12-02-2008 06:26 AM

All I can answer is, "Not me".

Bullitt 12-02-2008 06:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 509849)
Well, it confuses hunky firemen when professed lesbians start coming on to them.

:lol2:

Chocolatl 12-02-2008 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bluecuracao (Post 509842)
This is such a weird question. It's a given that homosexuality hurts no one. Homosexuality is what it is, and what is meant to be.

The problem is, the horrible attitudes toward homosexuality. They hurt everyone.

Couldn't have said it better.

Trilby 12-02-2008 07:24 AM

I'll answer #1 (elspode, ever my model of tolerance and grace); #7 (footfootfoot has a point); and, #10 (Zen. That would be very confusing)

Flint 12-02-2008 07:36 AM

It hurts the one dude's anus, but he likes it.

Sundae 12-02-2008 08:39 AM

Funny how when Coke want people to drink something brown and fizzy made of vegetable extracts and sugar which has no nutritional value and rots people's teeth, they spend millions on advertising.

But when teh gays wants to recruit more members (heh heh heh) all they have to do is tell school children that some men like it up the poop shoot.

footfootfoot 12-02-2008 09:00 AM

'cause crack is more addictive than coke.

Cicero 12-02-2008 09:24 AM

If you are dating me at the time but you secretly like cock, me then. :)

limey 12-02-2008 01:24 PM

I'm sorry - I read the question as Why does homosexuality hurt :blush: ...

lumberjim 12-02-2008 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cicero (Post 509882)
If you are dating me at the time but you secretly like cock, me then. :)

That isn't the homosexuality that hurt you....it was dishonesty that hurt you.



this reminds me of a joke:

what's the difference between anal sex and a microwave?

hit ctrl+a for the answer
a microwave won't brown your meat.

Shawnee123 12-03-2008 09:47 AM

I know there are some traditional couples who feel their marriage is threatened by teh gheys...but that's just stupidity.

Love is love. Commitment is commitment.

Cicero 12-03-2008 02:58 PM

No that's wrong. Because it is dishonesty, and a penis that I will never have. ;)

dar512 12-03-2008 04:13 PM

I'm a product of my environment and upbringing, I suppose.

Rationally, I believe that two consenting adults should be able to do whatever as long as no permanent harm is done.

The truth is, though, that female homosexuality doesn't bother me. But male homosexuality is ewwww.

I don't know why.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawnee123 (Post 510112)
I know there are some traditional couples who feel their marriage is threatened by teh gheys...but that's just stupidity.

Love is love. Commitment is commitment.

Isn't it more that they think their vows to each other will be cheapened if 'just anyone' is allowed to go ahead and get married? That's the feeling I get when I read those sorts of discussions.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 510271)

The truth is, though, that female homosexuality doesn't bother me. But male homosexuality is ewwww.

I don't know why.


It's probably the whole bottom/poo thing.

You should try anal sex some time. Maybe you'd change your mind. ;)

dar512 12-03-2008 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 510275)
It's probably the whole bottom/poo thing.

You should try anal sex some time. Maybe you'd change your mind. ;)

How to phrase this...

I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 04:20 PM

Oh so you've already tried it or no the thought of the bottom/poo thing doesn't turn you off?

limey 12-03-2008 04:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dar512 (Post 510277)
How to phrase this...

I can fairly confidently say that that's not it.

[smirk]

Elspode 12-03-2008 04:52 PM

Let's bring this thread, for once, back to reality...

If two dudes who are happily buggering one another, or two ladies happily slurping the juices, decide that they wish to be legally and morally entangled for all of time...

Why, how, where, when...can it damage *anything*?

People who love each other should be allowed to enter a legally binding agreement based on nothing more than their love, and it shouldn't matter whether they have tab A going into slot B or whatever. Any heterosexual couple is allowed, nay, *encouraged* to do this whenever they please. Why should a couple who has two tab A's or slots B be different?

I dare anyone to provide a serious argument as to why this premise is wrong on any level.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 04:57 PM

Because God said so!

Elspode 12-03-2008 05:31 PM

No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 05:35 PM

You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

ETA: You can't refuse to acknowledge one side of an argument just because you don't agree with it imo. It is a part of the argument/social discourse and therefore cannot simply be set aside as it forms a part of how society views the issue.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.

Elspode 12-03-2008 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 510312)
You can't have the argument without including God into the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

Not in my theology, it doesn't. And I'm real mod.

What about separating marriage from the state? What about making it no benefit to be married at all? Wouldn't that solve the issue? Or better yet, give defacto couples the same rights as marrieds.[/quote]

In the Constitution of the United States, there's a separation of Church and State (work with me, okay, Radar? TW?).

Marriage, as seen by law, is a *contract*. Its a business deal, pure and simple. Otherwise, when the marriage fails, there'd be no need to divide the property and income into the future and such.

My point is this: Marriage is a contract that is only currently available to heterosexuals. Why? Don't just tell me " 'cause that's how it is".

Tell me *why*...seriously, why?

Happy Monkey 12-03-2008 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 510312)
You can't have the argument without including God in the equation since during modern history (and most of us do live in modernity) the traditional idea of marriage has been to do so before God and witnesses.

And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 06:43 PM

ok then. The reason is that too many people sit around complaining about it and not enough actually get up off their butts and do something about it, such as protesting, raising community awareness etc.

On the other hand, 20 or even 15 years ago, gay people had it a lot tougher than they do now. At least they have a reasonable chance of walking down the road without having the crap bashed out of them these days.

Change in this regard - that is changing the social structure of the environment - happens slowly, but at a much faster rate than ever before. Maybe it's still not fast enough, but to use your words, 'that's how it is'.

Personally I don't care if gay people get married or live in sin or live their life however they choose, just as I feel about straight people, or people who aren't sure about their sexuality, or people who choose to have open marriages even. I don't have any reason to stop anyone from living their personal relationships how the choose to, but some people do, and to most of those that do, it comes down to religious beliefs or social beliefs.

Saying that God has nothing to do with the discussion is like saying you don't like how rain makes puddles, so let's only talk about the puddles that appear because of other things.

classicman 12-03-2008 06:43 PM

What about civil unions?

Aliantha 12-03-2008 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 510329)
And in even more modern history ( and most of us also live in even this level of modernity) it has been perfectly possible to do so before a justice and witnesses. The religious argument only applies to marriages performed by a religion - and different religions will have different rules.

That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route, or of course quick weddings before the man went off to war.

Even in many civil ceremonies God still gets a mention.

Elspode 12-03-2008 06:51 PM

I still don't see an argument that addresses the ultimate basic notion of marriage as a simple contract.

God in, God out. Marriage before a JOP or a Priest.

*WHY* can't gay people get legally married? Why can straight people do so without question?

"That's just the way it is" does *not* answer my query. I want to hear opinions as to why it is illegal for gay people to enter into the legally binding state of matrimony.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 06:54 PM

Because it's not socially acceptable. That's about the only reason.

When it is socially acceptable to be gay, then I'm sure marriage will be legal.

There is no other reason.

Happy Monkey 12-03-2008 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aliantha (Post 510335)
That's true, however prior to the middle of this century, it was generally people whose relationship was not sanctioned by family that chose this route,
...

And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

classicman 12-03-2008 07:21 PM

Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?

Aliantha 12-03-2008 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happy Monkey (Post 510361)
And/or, as with gays, people whose relationship wasn't sanctioned by their religions, i.e. mixed-religion marriage.

That's true HM. Of course it's also true that often times the family is driven by their religion when they make these sorts of 'judgements'.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by classicman (Post 510362)
Perhaps it depends on the accepted definition of marriage?

I think Els has been pretty clear on how he defines marriage. It's a simple contract.

How do you define marriage Classic?

classicman 12-03-2008 07:36 PM

For the sake of the argument here is one definition:
Quote:

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses." The Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam gives men and women the "right to marriage" regardless of their race, colour or nationality, but not religion.

classicman 12-03-2008 07:37 PM

My point is not to disagree with Els, but to say that the argument is more based upon ones accepted definition than anything else.

Elspode 12-03-2008 08:09 PM

...and my point is simply that all current "socially acceptable" definitions of marriage are wrong.

Race, religion, national origin...none of these things are any longer acceptable reasons to deny the right of marriage between two people in any country which we would call, by almost any set of defintions, "civilized".

Yet it is permissable, nay, *legal*, to deny the right of marriage to two individuals strictly based upon the fact that they happen to be of the same sex.

I'm still waiting for someone to give me an absolute, logical, moral reason why this should be so. A moral reason not based on any one theology or mythology, but a truly, simply, plainly *moral* reason.

jinx 12-03-2008 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode (Post 510376)
right of marriage between two people

Why just 2?

classicman 12-03-2008 08:20 PM

Oh, well if the definition isn't to your liking then write your congressman.

ZenGum 12-03-2008 08:21 PM

Have I waved the great prophet Roy Zimmerman at you all lately?

"It's the Lord's holy word
said my second wife to my third..."

classicman 12-03-2008 08:32 PM

nope - please do....

Elspode 12-03-2008 08:42 PM

Any group of people should be able to enter into a legal contract without exception regardless of sexual orientation.

Thanks for pointing that out, Jinx.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 08:45 PM

Obviously I can't speak for anyone else, but the fact that I'm 'legally' married doesn't mean anywhere near as much to me as the fact that I feel spiritually bound to my husband. In fact, it doesn't really mean anything to me what the law thinks. This is my issue with the whole legal contract argument. There's more involved in getting married than a simple signing of names. If that's all it was, then there'd be no talking or exchanging of vows. People would just send away for the forms, sign them and then send them back.

ZenGum 12-03-2008 08:47 PM

Still, if we are thinking of civil unions, they come with various pension/insurance benefits. Polygamous unions could become tricky in that respect.
Suppose eight people get "married". Do they all get carer's leave when one is sick? How many mother-in-law's funerals can they attend? How would this affect welfare and pensions?
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.
Not that these things should preclude poly-marriage, but I think they're interesting questions.

Aliantha 12-03-2008 08:49 PM

I can't imagine having another wife in this house, but an extra husband would come in handy sometimes. :)

Pie 12-03-2008 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ZenGum (Post 510403)
It would even be possible, by adding new spouses as old ones die, to keep a poly-marriage going indefinitely.

Read any RAH recently?

binky 12-03-2008 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jinx (Post 510383)
Why just 2?

Because then you are a Mormon. Marriage is just between a man and a woman, and another woman, and another.....

TheMercenary 12-03-2008 09:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elspode (Post 510309)
No, I'm fucking serious, m'kay?

I want *one* reasonable, non-mythological argument as to why to people of the same sex shouldn't be allowed to marry.

I present you all with the notion that it is *impossible* to make a valid argument against gay marriage that doesn't rely on theology.

Go ahead. Try it.

None of that was in the title of the thread.

ZenGum 12-03-2008 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pie (Post 510405)
Read any RAH recently?

err, who? (I guess that means "no".)

dar512 12-03-2008 10:18 PM

Robert Anson Heinlein - One of the preeminent science fiction authors of the golden era.

In particular, The Moon is a Harsh Mistress discusses line-marriage.

morethanpretty 12-03-2008 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary (Post 510416)
None of that was in the title of the thread.

That was inevitable where it was going to go though. There are no arguments against gay marriage that do not include theology. Any "moral" or "social" arguments are not based on facts either. I want someone to explain how this definition of "traditional marriage" came about. I think it was simply made up to counter gay marriage rights. Marriage has meant alot of things over the course of time.
It used to be traditional for the bride's family to give a dowry, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be traditional for the bride's property to then belong to her husband, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It used to be tradition that for the family to arrange the marriage, should we do that in keeping with tradition? It was tradition for a man to divorce a woman for not giving him sons, should we do that in keeping with tradition? You see where I'm going with this I think. The "Traditional marriage" argument has no real standing because there is no such thing in history. Marriage has changed over history, even recently. Those who support this idea, chose one common theme and stuck with just that, because it is the only thing that is in alignment with what they want.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:17 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.